By Darren R. Spedale and William N. Eskridge, Jr.
International visitors at the Gay Games in Chicago are likely to encounter the highly visible topic of same-sex marriage in the United States. In the last two months alone, the issue has occupied the U.S. Senate ( which attempted to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage ) and New York's highest court ( where attorneys for the state successfully argued that the state is not required to recognize same-sex marriage ) .
Why are social conservatives so focused on preventing same-sex marriage? They justify this obsession with the claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry will harm the institution of marriage, and America, therefore, needs to 'protect' marriage from the harms of same-sex unions.
However, the concept of same-sex marriage is not a new one. Denmark was the first country in the world to extend the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples ( as registered partnerships ) in 1989, followed by Norway in 1993 and Sweden in 1995.
Some U.S. senators have suggested that Scandinavia should be Exhibit A as to why we shouldn't have same-sex marriage here. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has stated that 'Ten years of de facto same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has further weakened marriage.'However, what does the evidence actually indicate?
First, we see no indications that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution; if anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. After each of Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, more heterosexual couples per capita were getting married than before same-sex couples had the rights of marriage.
Second, divorce rates among heterosexual couples went down after passage of each of their respective partnership laws. Third, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries have either declined or stabilized.
Research has also uncovered social benefits related to enactment of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Many couples reported a greater emphasis on monogamy, which may be reflected by the fact that rates of HIV and STD infections declined in each of Scandinavian countries in the years after they passed their partnership laws. Other social benefits have been noted as well.
Finally, it is important to address the 'slippery slope' argument, which contends that the recognition of same-sex marriage would start a dangerous movement towards legal recognition of socially unacceptable relationships. This has not happened in Scandinavia. Seventeen years of recognition of same-sex marriage rights has not led to any calls for recognition of polygamy, incestual marriage, marriage to animals or other types of relationships that are often tied to the 'slippery slope' argument.
Ultimately, the sky hasn't fallen on those countries that have the longest history with extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, a lesson that is worthy of notice. Rather than scapegoat gay couples as the attackers from which marriage needs 'defending,' pundits and politicians alike should look to such recent modifications to marriage as no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements and legal recognitions for heterosexual cohabitation as the real culprits. According to the evidence, the Scandinavian countries are getting along just fine with marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Spedale and Eskridge are authors of Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence ( Oxford University Press, www.gaymarriagebook.com ) . Spedale will talk about the book at Borders, 2817 N. Clark, on Thurs., July 20, at 7 p.m.